• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Obama has broken the back of Republicans

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Um was the ACA a +1 situation?

And your analogy is only applicable if a law is determining a binary outcome, not something as complex and nuanced as most laws are.

It's a +1 situation in that they bypassed a dead Kennedy and leapfrogged Scott Brown. Using reconciliation and forcing the legislation when he was just elected to vote against it. I guess his constituents don't have a say in the matter. The state of Ted Kennedy, a hugely liberal state, voted for a Republican Senator knowing full well he was going to be the deciding vote against.

That failed.

The 2010 elections, Republican victories. That failed.

So Yea there was a lot of pissed off people back then, th crying ass shame was putting Romney on the ticket. Hugely terrible idea.

It was not meant to be a comparable analogy, just an example of a possible deal that could be done trying to fix Anarchist420.
 
That's just false. The Republicans who did this to us wanted to end Obamacare even though they didn't have the votes to do so.

So instead of honoring the Constitution and the democratic process whereby the President and the Senate derive their authority, they took the government and economy hostage.

That's got nothing to do with negotiation.

It doesn't matter if you agree with their goal, no one should accept this tactic.

The left keeps mentioning the democratic process... Yet nothing was said when Obama does an end around the legislative body of our government and changes the ACA on multiple occasions. Not to mention using the whole reconciliation process to jam the ACA through congress.
 
..and MA soundly reelected Scott Brown.. oh wait, they didn't. Turns out too they like their RomobamneyCare too.

Perhaps MA dems nominated a horrible candidate, who approached campaigning dismissively, and managed to blow a sure thing in a weird special election.

Which they promptly reversed first chance they got.
 
That's cool and all, except it's not happened.

For one thing, default cannot be forced by the measures the Repubs took. But let's forget about that. Just notice that Boehner came out and said publicly that they weren't threatening default.

Fern


Here's a better idea.

How about you and the rest of your republican voting buddies snap the fuck out of it and realize what's happened the last couple weeks, specifically in regards to the words that have been coming out of John Boehner's orange piehole. Did you miss how he just lied about the shutdown?

What exactly is it that you think gives him some credibility? Non republicans should just relax, accept his past lies and brinksmanship, dismiss any notion of accountability here and just let bygones be bygones? Basically, act like GOTP voters?


GTFO here, go home Fern, you're drunk.
 
No, the Tea Party broke the back of Republicans. Obama just sat still and shook his head.

This is correct.


Many of us here predicted this, but I don't think any of us thought they'd do it like this. True 'cut off the nose to spite the face' stuff right here.
 
Lets negotiate tweaker2. Let me start this negotiation by stating up front that "I will not negotiate". That was the position our glorious dictator took and held all along.

"You can disagree as long as you go along with whatever crap we shove down your throat." That's pretty much the Democrat party line these days.

Or another way of looking at is:
Repubs: I want to burn your house down (ACA/debt default)
Obama: No
Repubs: how about I burn the second floor?
Obama: No
Repubs: how about just the kitchen and maybe the bathroom?
Obama: No
Repubs: YOU'RE NOT NEGOTIATING!
 
Him winning the Senate seat in that state at that time speaks absolute volumes.

It's MA, God couldn't run there as a conservative and win an election yet Scott Brown did.
 
Furthermore, there are legal mechanisms in place to insure that in the event the deadline was not met, interest would still be paid on the national debt as per the Constitution "The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned."

The "legal mechanism" you refer to is that Congress is REQUIRED under the 14th Amendment to raise the debt ceiling to prevent the nation's debt from being "questioned." In other words, it was supposedly unconstitutional for the Congress to refuse to raise the debit limit and thereby create a situation where the U.S. cannot honor its debt.

Well, you see how well that Constitutional stricture restrained the Republican Party, didn't you?

Furthermore, Constitutional scholars are all over the map with respect to whether the 14th Amendment gives the President the power to tell the Treasury department to sell bonds in order to service the debt.

And think about this obvious point: If the 14th Amendment means what you seem to think it means, then why on Earth would Congress need to periodically raise the debt limit? If the President already has the power to authorize the Treasury to issue new debt, then Congress is completely superfluous. So how come Congress and the President have been playing the "Congress has the power to increase the debt limit" game since 1917?

Edit: Furthermore, you're talking out of both sides of your mouth. If - as you imply - it's widely accepted that Obama can raise the debt limit all by himself, then how come the Republican party - and particularly the Tea Party - thought that the debt limit gives them leverage? You're an obvious fan of the Tea Party, so explain to me the clear contradiction between what you assert is the President's power and what the Tea Party so obviously believed was huge leverage to force the President's hand? You - and all of the Tea Party apologists - can't have it both ways.
 
Last edited:
No, the Tea Party broke the back of Republicans. Obama just sat still and shook his head.

The American People broke the back of Republicans. Obama just held firm hoping there were enough good guys to go along with him.

Sometimes a nation goes the other way.

nazi_germany_rare_color_iages_pictures_photos_00.jpg
 
The left keeps mentioning the democratic process... Yet nothing was said when Obama does an end around the legislative body of our government and changes the ACA on multiple occasions. Not to mention using the whole reconciliation process to jam the ACA through congress.

It's no signing statement record, but you're right, the DC games were in full gear then. However it should be mentioned that much of it probably wouldn't have been resorted to had the president not had such a rabid, ideological opposition willing to put party ahead of country in order to impede him.

Do you have any examples of Obama's executive actions that over stepped those taken by Cheney/Bush? I figure if you weren't complaining about the last admins shenanigans, or worse actively defending them like so many here were, bringing up Obama's moves is just weak partisan butthurt. Unless there are examples of laws being broken, in which case break out those links. I think you should just relax. Try to take comfort in the fact that this guy's use of DC tricks and legalese doesn't involve claims of a unitary executive and several thousand dead American enlisted.
 
Or another way of looking at is:
Repubs: I want to burn your house down (ACA/debt default)
Obama: No
Repubs: how about I burn the second floor?
Obama: No
Repubs: how about just the kitchen and maybe the bathroom?
Obama: No
Repubs: YOU'RE NOT NEGOTIATING!


Isn't it just mind boggling that there are "adults" in government who basically live up to your example?

A couple years ago I would have considered all this Onion material, but dagnabit those pubs have again made me re-evaluate the tenacity with which they will denigrate themselves and others, in order to make a political buck.
 
Well, when Orrin Hatch (Orrin Fucking Hatch!) claims that one of the principle driving force think tanks behind the teahad have gone too far, they've gone too far.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/...grown-too-extreme/?nl=us&emc=edit_cn_20131017

Obama isn't destroying the Repubs- far right wing billionaire funders are doing that with the Tea Party dupes. Even they are apparently starting to catch on to the idea that they've created a monster-

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2013/10/10/2762451/boehner-adopts-heritage-koch-plan/

Obama? When the Teahadists charged off into the political wilderness, he just stood aside. Other than more bad rep and an embarrassing need to cave, they got jack & shit out of it, so far, and that likely won't change.

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/10/16/2792761/republicans-shutting-government/

Boehner is blathering rather desperately, but the only reason he'll pull the govt shutdown gun out again is to shoot himself with it.
 
It's no signing statement record, but you're right, the DC games were in full gear then. However it should be mentioned that much of it probably wouldn't have been resorted to had the president not had such a rabid, ideological opposition willing to put party ahead of country in order to impede him.

Do you have any examples of Obama's executive actions that over stepped those taken by Cheney/Bush? I figure if you weren't complaining about the last admins shenanigans, or worse actively defending them like so many here were, bringing up Obama's moves is just weak partisan butthurt. Unless there are examples of laws being broken, in which case break out those links. I think you should just relax. Try to take comfort in the fact that this guy's use of DC tricks and legalese doesn't involve claims of a unitary executive and several thousand dead American enlisted.

This explains the dumbing down of America. Thank you. Reduced expectations and excuses.

You do realize that previous administrations lack of leadership in no way shape or form excuses the poor leadership of the current administration.
 
Read these threads and just shake the head... do any of you truly believe you "won" anything?

Mitch McConnel won. Have you?

Wooooo....that was a close one. I'm glad Obama led the country to our salvation. Oh wait.....nobody won anything, especially the American people.

Half the base of either party are just mindless cheerleader drones.

GIMMIE A W GIMMIE AN O GIMMIE AN N What does that spell????

WIN WIN WIN!!!!

lawl! yay! oh wait....😳
 
If the Republicans have had their back broken by Obama, it must be very humiliating. Imagine being ass-raped by a black Kenyan Muslim communist affectionately known as "Dear Leader" by the Tea Party 'Tards. Oh the horror!
 
This explains the dumbing down of America. Thank you. Reduced expectations and excuses.

Your kind put the likes of Dubya and Palin in power, I think it's a little late (not to mention misplaced) to be bitching about the 'dumbing down of America' and reduced expectations. Clearly modern conservatives as a whole have quite the tolerance for ignorance and the 'lowest of expectations,' anyone paying attention to the last several presidential elections knows that. Guys like the experienced and fluent in Mandarin Huntsman are seen as tainted, not part of the appropriate religious club, and are marginalized. Another W-like knucklehead by the name of Perry makes it to the final showdown however.

You're welcome.


You do realize that previous administrations lack of leadership in no way shape or form excuses the poor leadership of the current administration


The problem I have with this snarky query is not so much the snark contained therein, but rather your hilarious starting point that the thing we call 2000-20008 was simply a case of a "lack of leadership." Just another rancid flavor of "Aw Bush isn't thick, he just has trouble speaking in public!"

Give me an example of a lack of leadership and I will tell you if I agree or not. I won't mimic you in your need to draw a black or white generalization of a subject.

I don't recall offering an excuse, but I am sorry if mentioning something Obama and Dems in general have been dealing with since 2008 and directly relates to the topic causes you discomfort. My comment was directed at the Obama haters who do everything they can to insulate their criticism of Obama from their support of Cheney/Bush.

I guess I just wish more republicans could get as frothy and upset about manipulated intelligence and outright lies causing mass death and maiming of our warriors, as they do about reconciliation being used to circumvent legislative obstruction. Not saying you in particular, I'm using reconciliation as an examples because it's been brought up so much lately.

My view is 'the GOTP likes to say this isn't a game, well, time to stop bitching when your opponent agrees.' If you're going to trash Obama for something, it doesn't carry a lot of weight if you weren't bothered by similar or worse from Cheney/Bush.

Example: If you didn't have a problem with Cheney's 'unitary executive,' I don't think you should be calling Obama a dictator for standing up to an unprecedented display of obstructionist House asshatery.

If you are enraged over the mishandling of an outpost during a crisis, which resulted in 4 deaths, it stands to reason that you might be equally or more enraged over the mishandling of an elective war that gave us almost 4,500 KIA. Or how about x 10+ KIA at similar posts during the previous admin producing zero outrage? You get the idea.

You already heard me acknowledge he pulled off no fantastic feat here with the House and the end of the shutdown. I will give him credit for knowing when to walk slowly while his opponents trip themselves, especially when that trip up may cause some pretty destructive consequences later on down the road, and would be richly deserved IMO.

Seems a bit odd Obama keeps avoiding huge pitfalls and making correct calls like that though, no? But again, if he broke some laws or engaged in inappropriate leaning on people, just throw me a link. I'm perfectly willing to admit I may have missed a story or three.
 
ACA was signed into law on March 23, 2010.

There have been numerous attempts to repeal it, delay it, or defend it by Republicans and all have failed.

The Supreme Court upheld the law June 28th 2012.

So as you can see, there was nothing to negotiate about.

Except that it isn't even the same law that was passed anymore, since it's been changed by executive order 5 times since then, unlawfully bypassing congress. Right?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickung...and-and-this-demand-only-to-modify-obamacare/
 
I don't think it could be much clearer to those who haven't imbibed the Republican Kool-Aid that what we see here in this thread are a bunch of posters who are members of a cult of religious fanatics who, even in the face of obvious proof of their delusional state, are still able to deny it. They have been so deeply programmed into their altered reality they can't escape. Facts for these poor, poor, lost fools are just things to be twisted. It wouldn't matter so much if they didn't give their disease to others. We have seen it all before in the millions marching screaming Sieg Heil.
 
I am constantly boggled by the fact that a few billionaires (e.g. the Koch brothers and Rupert Murdoch) can manipulate such a wide base of people by just throwing money into politics.

It's rather pitiful that people will vote against their own benefit because they're swayed by the billionaire republican backers, letting the elite of the .1% continue to get even richer.

The Koch brothers are beginning to get desperate; now they're even trying to use free beer:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/17/koch-brothers-beer-offensive-obamacare

This entire shutdown was engineered from the get-go; try to force a shut down, then try to put the blame on Democrats (this part failed; the public didn't fall for it).
http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/207838/koch-brothers-shutdown-just-failed-hard-and-they-are-pissed/
 
Last edited:
Him winning the Senate seat in that state at that time speaks absolute volumes.

It's MA, God couldn't run there as a conservative and win an election yet Scott Brown did.

You realize that the reason people call it Romneycare is because MA elected a conservative governor, right? The idea that MA electing a republican should be something unheard of, especially in a special election where turnout is low, isn't right.

I'm sorry, but the tea party insanity is not due to the procedural methods used to pass the ACA. It predates that time considerably. Basically that all happened as soon as Obama was elected president.
 
The left keeps mentioning the democratic process... Yet nothing was said when Obama does an end around the legislative body of our government and changes the ACA on multiple occasions. Not to mention using the whole reconciliation process to jam the ACA through congress.

Do you remember why reconciliation was necessary? Democrats had the votes needed but not enough to overcome the constant filibustering.
 
I am constantly boggled by the fact that a few billionaires (e.g. the Koch brothers and Rupert Murdoch) can manipulate such a wide base of people by just throwing money into politics.

It's rather pitiful that people will vote against their own benefit because they're swayed by the billionaire republican backers, letting the elite of the .1% continue to get even richer.

The Koch brothers are beginning to get desperate; now they're even trying to use free beer:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/17/koch-brothers-beer-offensive-obamacare

This entire shutdown was engineered from the get-go; try to force a shut down, then try to put the blame on Democrats (this part failed; the public didn't fall for it).
http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/207838/koch-brothers-shutdown-just-failed-hard-and-they-are-pissed/

The money only works since it encourages those affected to go vote. Had the rest of the public done their civic duty, the ability to mobilize a base with a campaign wouldn't make much of a difference.
 
The "legal mechanism" you refer to is that Congress is REQUIRED under the 14th Amendment to raise the debt ceiling to prevent the nation's debt from being "questioned." In other words, it was supposedly unconstitutional for the Congress to refuse to raise the debit limit and thereby create a situation where the U.S. cannot honor its debt.

Well, you see how well that Constitutional stricture restrained the Republican Party, didn't you?

Furthermore, Constitutional scholars are all over the map with respect to whether the 14th Amendment gives the President the power to tell the Treasury department to sell bonds in order to service the debt.

And think about this obvious point: If the 14th Amendment means what you seem to think it means, then why on Earth would Congress need to periodically raise the debt limit? If the President already has the power to authorize the Treasury to issue new debt, then Congress is completely superfluous. So how come Congress and the President have been playing the "Congress has the power to increase the debt limit" game since 1917?

Edit: Furthermore, you're talking out of both sides of your mouth. If - as you imply - it's widely accepted that Obama can raise the debt limit all by himself, then how come the Republican party - and particularly the Tea Party - thought that the debt limit gives them leverage? You're an obvious fan of the Tea Party, so explain to me the clear contradiction between what you assert is the President's power and what the Tea Party so obviously believed was huge leverage to force the President's hand? You - and all of the Tea Party apologists - can't have it both ways.

Wrong - the Congress is NOT required to raise the debt ceiling to pay interest on the debt.

We bring in enough cash WITHOUT GOING INTO DEBT to pay interest. As long as interest is paid first, we DONT NEED EXTRAORDINARY MEASURES like the Dictator Fidel Obama to take Congresses power of the purse and cause a constitutional crises to just to fund OBAMA PHONES.

You should really get educated before giving your opinions on things you dont understand.
 
Back
Top